Preliminary Programme

The House of Hesse underwent a traumatic split after the death of landgrave Philip the Magnanimous in 1567. Even though he wanted his sons to inherit and to rule together, the territories of the House of Hesse were separated; especially the sons by his first wife divided the lands into four parts. But the outside representation of different branches often concealed the reality of common economic and educational institutions, common rule over smaller parts of the dynasty’s territories, and an economy dependent on each region. Traditional forms of financing the house’s expenses based on different Rhine tolls, local and imperial taxes, and other forms of dues were kept for each of the new lines of the house. These practices of financing formed the basis for developing separate financial systems, which were nonetheless entangled and connected by shared dynastic interests and properties, leading also to transfers of knowledge between the different lines of the House of Hesse. The proposed paper aims to analyse how economic and financial practices served as a bond between divided lines of dynasties in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the long-term, economic dependencies and relations could lead to a re-unification of parts or the entire house. (Show less)

The composite Habsburg monarchy underwent important processes of state formation in the long eighteenth century, which changed the economic and social landscape of the monarchy and affected the nobility as the ruling social group in many ways. Three successive Habsburg rulers, Charles VI, Maria Theresa, and Joseph II, introduced sweeping monarchical reforms. The abolition of serfdom and the taxation of noble lands were the most prominent changes. This paper analyses how noble families dealt with these new circumstances in the long eighteenth century regarding their income and family strategy. Several noble families from the Austro-Bohemian core lands of the monarchy will serve as examples. The Paar family, for instance, held the very important postal system of the Habsburg monarchy as a fief. Charles VI and Maria Theresa gradually nationalized the post, however. The family’s loss of income was compensated by yearly state subsidy. As a consequence, the family had to readjust their income-strategy. Similarly, the Harrach family adapted their strategy after the War of the Austrian Succession. Traditionally occupying important and high-income state offices, they concentrated afterwards on the management of their possessions and participated in the proto-industrial takeoff of the Habsburg monarchy. This paper concentrates on exploiting sources of income of such noble families to understand better the financial basis of the ruling social group. (Show less)

By marrying, Anna Maria Luisa de’ Medici (1667-1743) not only brought a large dowry to the marriage, but was also granted a privy purse, established by her father Cosimo III (1642-1723), Grandduke of Tuscany, and her husband Johann Wilhelm von Pfalz-Neuburg (1658-1715). As ruling electress of Palatine and Duchess of Jülich-Berg, for more than 25 years she was able to spend a huge sum of money, ranging from 18.000 per annum up to 31.250 fl. for her own needs without further restrictions, controlled only by her own management and accounting. When her husband died in 1716, she returned to Florence, staying in contact with her husband’s successor to argue about her annual income. But in Florence, she was not the only woman at court: the court consisted beside her father and her younger brother Gian Gastone (1671-1737) of two widows as part of the family. The first had been the wife of her elder brother Ferdinando, Violante Beatrice of Bavaria (1673-1731), the second the wife of her uncle (ex-cardinal) Francesco Maria de’ Medici, Eleonora Luisa Gonzaga (1686-1741). And like the electress dowager, these widows also had independent incomes and were used to financial agency in their own right. Based on the annual account books of Anna Maria Luisa de’ Medici in Florence and her letters and notes concerning financial affairs from her return to Florence in 1717 until 1723, the year her father died, it is possible to analyse, how this court, especially the female members from different high noble dynasties with many sources of income acted jointly or separately in domestic financial issues. This paper will show how status, rank, and dynastic background influenced Anna Maria Luisa de’ Medici’s view of her female relatives by marriage. Her finances will serve as an example to study how female members of noble houses financed their lives, and which frameworks or parameters determined their financial situations, especially comparing married life and widowhood. (Show less)